Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2227

    Uploaded by

    Dhruv Chadha
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules. The Court held that High Courts have the power to regulate the conduct of advocates within the court and lay down conditions for practicing. While Bar Councils have the power to punish advocates for misconduct, the court also has powers to disqualify advocates found guilty of contempt from practicing. Rule 11 does not permanently disqualify advocates and only prohibits practicing until the contempt is purged, so it is a reasonable restriction that does not infringe the advocates' rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2227

    Uploaded by

    Dhruv Chadha
    2K views12 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules. The Court held that High Courts have the power to regulate the conduct of advocates within the court and lay down conditions for practicing. While Bar Councils have the power to punish advocates for misconduct, the court also has powers to disqualify advocates found guilty of contempt from practicing. Rule 11 does not permanently disqualify advocates and only prohibits practicing until the contempt is purged, so it is a reasonable restriction that does not infringe the advocates' rights.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Ethics Presentation.pptx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules. The Court held that High Courts have the power to regulate the conduct of advocates within the court and lay down conditions for practicing. While Bar Councils have the power to punish advocates for misconduct, the court also has powers to disqualify advocates found guilty of contempt from practicing. Rule 11 does not permanently disqualify advocates and only prohibits practicing until the contempt is purged, so it is a reasonable restriction that does not infringe the advocates' rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    2K views12 pages

    Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2227

    Uploaded by

    Dhruv Chadha
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules. The Court held that High Courts have the power to regulate the conduct of advocates within the court and lay down conditions for practicing. While Bar Councils have the power to punish advocates for misconduct, the court also has powers to disqualify advocates found guilty of contempt from practicing. Rule 11 does not permanently disqualify advocates and only prohibits practicing until the contempt is purged, so it is a reasonable restriction that does not infringe the advocates' rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 12

    Bar Council of India v.

    High Court
    of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2227

    -Dhruv Chadha;
    -Aaditya Ranbir Sahgal;
    -Apurv Singhvi
    FACTS OF THE CASE
     The present case dealt with a challenge to the constitutional
    validity of a rule formulated by the High Court of Kerala relating
    to advocates who have been found in contempt.
     High Courts are empowered to lay down rules for dealing with
    cases of contempt, in furtherance of Section 23 of the
    Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
     Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules was challenged as being
    violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as
    also Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act on the ground that it
    seriously impinges upon and usurps the powers of adjudication and
    punishment conferred on the Bar Councils under the Act.
    Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules

    "No advocate who has been found


    guilty of contempt of court shall be
    permitted to appear, act or plead in
    any court unless he has purged himself
    of the contempt.”
     The validity of the said rule, in light of Section 34 of the
    Advocates Act, came up for consideration before the Supreme
    Court in Pravin C. Shah Vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali and Another [(2001)
    8 SCC 650], wherein, it was observed:
    “Conduct in court is a matter concerning the court and hence the Bar Council
    cannot claim that what should happen inside the court could also be
    regulated by the Bar Council in exercise of its disciplinary powers. The right
    to practice, no doubt, is the genus of which the right to appear and conduct
    cases in the court may be a specie. But the right to appear and conduct cases
    in the court is a matter on which the court must have the major supervisory
    power. Hence the court-cannot be divested of the control or supervision of
    the court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate."
    SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
    SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONER

     The Bar Council of India represented by Mr VR Reddy


    contended that in terms of S. 35 Advocates Act, 1961, the
    Bar Council of India is entitled to punish an advocate for
    commission of misconduct, whether professional or
    otherwise. Since this power is expressly vested in BCI by
    virtue of a statutory provision, Courts cannot disqualify a
    lawyer from practicing by way of R. 11.
     This is imminent from para 79 of the Supreme Court
    Bar Association v. Union of India case (1998) 4 SCC
    409:
    “An advocate who is found guilty of contempt of court may….but it is
    for the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India to punish that
    advocate by either debarring him from practice or suspending his licence,
    as may be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each case.”
     Further, no time limit has been prescribed under R. 11 of
    the impugned rules and hence it is violative of Art 14 of the
    Constitution of India.
    SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

     The High Court of Kerala was represented by Mr Iyer.


    He placed heavy reliance on the decision of the
    Constitution Bench in SCBA v Union of India (1998) to
    justify the validity of R. 11. The SCBA judgment
    provides for the right of the Courts to regulate the
    conduct of advocates within the court and to prescribe
    the conditions subject to which they can practise. Such a
    power is in no way subservient to disciplinary powers
    granted to the Bar Council. This view has been approved
    in Harish Uppal v Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45.
     Para 25 of the Harish Uppal judgment (which reproduces part
    of para 79 of the SCBA judgment) reads as follows:
    “Under Article 144 of the Constitution "all authorities, civil and judicial, in
    the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. A complaint can
    be referred to by the Courts and the respective Bar Council is obligated to act.
    In case the Bar council, even after receiving "reference" from the Court,
    fails to take action against the advocate concerned, this Court might
    consider invoking its powers under S. 38 of the Act by sending for the record
    of the proceedings from the Bar Council and passing appropriate orders.
    Under S 38 only the Supreme Court has the appellate jurisdiction dealing
    with such matters.”
     Further, the advocate can start pleading as soon as he is
    absolved of the charges against him.
    DECISION OF THE COURT

    You might also like